NUS Chinese Dance (2)

[keerling]

[borisi]

This is much better than your other one.

[eikin]

keerling, you've been reminded of the posting guidelines in Critique Corner.

thread moved to Ready, Lights, Action! subforum.

[Denosha]

Pardon my ignorance but this doesn't really look like chinese dance? Or is chinese dance now more westernised? I don't know anything about dancing, just curious cos the lady's outfit looks like for ballet?

[keerling]

Originally Posted by borisi This is much better than your other one.

Thanks but I think they can't be compared though they are from the same dance.

[keerling]

Originally Posted by eikin keerling, you've been reminded of the posting guidelines in Critique Corner. thread moved to Ready, Lights, Action! subforum.

Post your image in here to get serious and honest feedback from fellow photographers.
I need some serious fb btw. :>
thanks btw

[keerling]

Originally Posted by Denosha Pardon my ignorance but this doesn't really look like chinese dance? Or is chinese dance now more westernised? I don't know anything about dancing, just curious cos the lady's outfit looks like for ballet?

Well I have no rights to decide what outfits the dancers should wear.
It IS taken in the non-westernized chinese dance performance btw.

[Denosha]

Originally Posted by keerling Post your image in here to get serious and honest feedback from fellow photographers. I need some serious fb btw. :> thanks btw

Ok. Here's my $0.02. I think the composition could be better. Is there a reason why you chose to shoot in landscape? Cos i think portrait would have been the better choice since you wouldn't have to chop off the dancer's hand and leg in this awkward way. Furthermore, being a dance, i think those elements are rather important to the look and the feel since it is the expressiveness of their body language that makes the shot. Keep shooting!

[keerling]

Originally Posted by Denosha Ok. Here's my $0.02. I think the composition could be better. Is there a reason why you chose to shoot in landscape? Cos i think portrait would have been the better choice since you wouldn't have to chop off the dancer's hand and leg in this awkward way. Furthermore, being a dance, i think those elements are rather important to the look and the feel since it is the expressiveness of their body language that makes the shot. Keep shooting!

erm..landscape means? Pardon my ignorance in photography. I have been tied down by school work and attachment and I have yet got time to sit down and have some serious photography lesson on my own.

Btw, I would like to shoot potrait of these dancers but too bad my lense is not powerful enough. Too short.

Thanks for the comment btw. :

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by keerling erm..landscape means? Pardon my ignorance in photography. I have been tied down by school work and attachment and I have yet got time to sit down and have some serious photography lesson on my own. Btw, I would like to shoot potrait of these dancers but too bad my lense is not powerful enough. Too short. Thanks for the comment btw. :

By landscape vs portrait, he meant the framing. Landscape frame is height of the picture shorter than the length across while Portrait frame is the other around.

If you had shot in portrait framing for the picture above, their legs and the female dancer's left hand would be nicely in the frame and the picture would be better balanced in weight between left and right. As it is now, it has the undersirable appearance that the lower bodies of the 2 dancers and her hands are abruptly cut off at the low edge of frame and the weight is skewed towards the right side.

As for the 1st picture posted in the critque corner, it's better to have the 2 dancers slightly on the left side of the frame so that there is more space in front of the female dancer to have her looking inwards into the centre vertical division of the frame. As it is now, the 2 dancers are slightly on the right side of the frame and the female dancer is as if she is looking out of the frame and this gives an undesirable sense of a little too heavy in weight on the right side, albeit only slightly.

Did you use a tripod/monopod or was it shot handheld? There seems to be handshake and/or motion blur. At 135mm, try to shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/135 if you want to avoid handshake blur. As for motion blur, the shutter speed you need to sue depends on how much motion blur (alot, some or none) you want to have in your picture to express your message. Sometimes, you have to think about handshake and motion blur at the same time and decide on the shutter speed (hence ISO) you want to have and use.

As for the technical side, this is what I previous posted for another forumer and it's still applicable here : http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost....9&postcount=11

[keerling]

Originally Posted by Clockunder By landscape vs portrait, he meant the framing. Landscape frame is height of the picture shorter than the length across while Portrait frame is the other around. If you had shot in portrait framing for the picture above, their legs and the female dancer's left hand would be nicely in the frame and the picture would be better balanced in weight between left and right. As it is now, it has the undersirable appearance that the lower bodies of the 2 dancers and her hands are abruptly cut off at the low edge of frame and the weight is skewed towards the right side. As for the 1st picture posted in the critque corner, it's better to have the 2 dancers slightly on the left side of the frame so that there is more space in front of the female dancer to have her looking inwards into the centre vertical division of the frame. As it is now, the 2 dancers are slightly on the right side of the frame and the female dancer is as if she is looking out of the frame and this gives an undesirable sense of a little too heavy in weight on the right side, albeit only slightly. Did you use a tripod/monopod or was it shot handheld? There seems to be handshake and/or motion blur. At 135mm, try to shoot with a shutter speed faster than 1/135 if you want to avoid handshake blur. As for motion blur, the shutter speed you need to sue depends on how much motion blur (alot, some or none) you want to have in your picture to express your message. Sometimes, you have to think about handshake and motion blur at the same time and decide on the shutter speed (hence ISO) you want to have and use. As for the technical side, this is what I previous posted for another forumer and it's still applicable here : http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost....9&postcount=11

need some time to digest, seriously.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by keerling erm..landscape means? Pardon my ignorance in photography. I have been tied down by school work and attachment and I have yet got time to sit down and have some serious photography lesson on my own. Btw, I would like to shoot potrait of these dancers but too bad my lense is not powerful enough. Too short. Thanks for the comment btw. :

equipment is not the main determining factor to taking good pics. have a look at mpenza's pics of the recent sally yeh concert... taken with a compact camera.

i suggest u go to the library and pick up these 2 books - "Understand Exposure" and "Learning to see creatively". both are written by bryan peterson. better still, buy them and read them thru and thru a few times. these are excellent guidebooks for beginners.

[yilishengxian]

Zooming out or using a shorter lens might be better for including the whole person .

[keerling]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 equipment is not the main determining factor to taking good pics. have a look at mpenza's pics of the recent sally yeh concert... taken with a compact camera. i suggest u go to the library and pick up these 2 books - "Understand Exposure" and "Learning to see creatively". both are written by bryan peterson. better still, buy them and read them thru and thru a few times. these are excellent guidebooks for beginners.

thank you. will take note/.

[keerling]

Originally Posted by yilishengxian Zooming out or using a shorter lens might be better for including the whole person .

Don't really understand this point.

[Redsun]

Well he means that maybe you can use a shorter lens like say 18mm you can get a wider view through your viewfinder and you would be able to get the dancers into your picture without cropping off her hand

[keerling]

Originally Posted by Redsun Well he means that maybe you can use a shorter lens like say 18mm you can get a wider view through your viewfinder and you would be able to get the dancers into your picture without cropping off her hand

But honestly, I think her hand is fine. Whats with her hands/legs/ anyways?

[zac08]

Originally Posted by keerling But honestly, I think her hand is fine. Whats with her hands/legs/ anyways?

You have cut off her left hand with this picture. Not aesthetically pleasing...

So if you have turned your camera to the side and shot it such that both arms and legs are in the picture, it may be much much better.

[keerling]

Originally Posted by zac08 You have cut off her left hand with this picture. Not aesthetically pleasing... So if you have turned your camera to the side and shot it such that both arms and legs are in the picture, it may be much much better.

Ah, I get what you mean.

[zac08]

Originally Posted by keerling Ah, I get what you mean.

Well, practise more and you'll get better in time...